Moon was Created

dad said:

Nonsense, we do not know that much about it. get a grip.

Click to expand...

Wrong. You have been shown that we do know quite a bit.

Yes, no problem. We simply look at what we really know. The density of the earth is calculated by mass,

Click to expand...

The density of the earth is not only caculated by mass but also borne out by seismic wave transit times. One confirms the other.

The velocity of a wave depends on the elastic properties and density of a material. If we let k represent the bulk modulus of a material, m the shear-modulus, and r the density, then the P-wave velocity, which we represent by a, is defined by:
(SOURCE)

Click to expand...

namely the stuff we find near the surface!

Click to expand...

I dunno, Brainiac, this looks a lot like all the way THROUGH the earth to me.

But you're so very very smart about all this, maybe you can show me where the math is off.

It is assumed that the inner earth would be the same

Click to expand...

Look at the picture again, Eniac. Does it look "the same" through the whole thing to you?

The data consists of things like waves passing through stuff we can't see! The wiggle and bounce of the waves needs interpreting,

Click to expand...

That's why we have GEOPHYSICISTS. Rather than uneducated yahoos who post on CF with wild unsupported claims.

dad said:

There is no reason to assume it goes on. If you claim it does, you need reasons.

Click to expand...

That's not how it works, though, is it? If I roll a ball into a wall at 2m/s and it bounces back a metre, and I roll it again at 4m/s and it bounces back two metres, at 8m/s it bounces 4 metres, and I keep on doing this until I finally roll it at 200m/s and it bounces back 100 metres, what do you suppose will happen when I roll it at, say, 8000m/s?

Here's your problem, dad - you think you can just throw out science as and when it suits you.

dad said:

I usually look for a spiritual reason for a spiritual effect, yes. I suppose your point is that there ain't no such thing as real spirits, and that 'spiritual' really means a part of the physical, and natural. Try proving that one!

Click to expand...

What spiritual effect have you seen? All you've heard is that the astronauts said they felt spiritual. But as we know, feeling spiritual is just a feeling, not a spiritual effect.
Preaching, too, is a physical action, so all you have are physical things.

I do not reject the imaginary razor, it is just that I do not chase dragons with it. It can be used within the fishbowl as a little tool, and in it's little place, it is fine. It is not a ghostbusting razor, however, and simply does not chase spirits anywhere.

Click to expand...

Well, then, it doesn't chase the spiritual elephant in your wardrobe away. Hey, dad, there's a spiritual elephant in your wardrobe!

The evidences for the spiritual must be plentiful, because most folks on earth believe in some form of spiritual.

Click to expand...

I guess then, during the slave era, the evidence for Black inferiority must have been plentiful? Arguments from popularity are rubbish, dad.

Men on the moon proclaimed a great spiritual impact, how is that not evidence?

Click to expand...

It's evidence they had a spiritual feeling, yes. As we know that's not evidence of spiritual influence. Focus.

I go by the bible, and science.

Click to expand...

Except when your personal fantasies about transparent gold, Marylin Monroe and spirits in the moon take precedence, right?

You don't even believe in spirits, do you? Now you claim that an imaginary razor cuts them out????! Strange. Why would I believe someone that thinks he cuts out spirits with a phantom razor, when he says there is an elephant ghost in the cupboard?? Try to base things on some semblance of reality.

Click to expand...

RIGHT BACK ATCHA!

If you don't believe there is a spiritual elephant in your wardrobe, you must have some reason, right? So what is that reason!

If you say that it was a spiritual experience because you felt a certain way, then why would we not say drug addicts are spiritual?

Click to expand...

Some drugs, so I'm told, do cause spiritual experiences. That's your problem, dad - having a spiritual experience can be caused by physical things.

By it's effects on others. Like a ripple effect of a rock on water, there had to be a spiritual impact to start with.

Click to expand...

A ripple in water is explained by the rock. The astronaut's feelings and so on are explained by them having a life changing experience by going to a whole other celestial body!

No, that is not being of a sound mind. There is no need to fear such boggy men. Gravity can be locally overridden, yes of course, there is precedent for that. But we know who did it, and usually why. We also have records of it, and many witnesses, not some isolated tales from someone that thinks he was abducted by aliens or something.

Click to expand...

I don't care what you of all people consider to be "of sound mind!" The point is that you don't believe that gravity was reversed by something in 1794 and then wiped everyone's memories. Justify yourself; why don't you believe that?

FishFace said:

Here's your problem, dad - you think you can just throw out science as and when it suits you.

Click to expand...

I think his issues are more fundamental than that. He likes to adhere to strict empiricism when it suits him but will jettison this whenever he wants to make up "fantasy Bible land" stories.

He demands from others those things he cannot deliver himself. And that is probably the most offensive part of his posts.

Actually Dad, if he were smart enough to handle the philosophy, would be lost in a mystery universe where "things just happen to him". He can't use his version of epistemology to predict anything, let alone understand anything.

I would hate to live in that disordered senseless drifting. But that is precisely where he appears to thrive.

I love the way his arguments against scientific information almost never involve any detailed "working through" of the data, but rather always resort to his "strict empiricism" requirements mixed with a random babbling of "big science words" and phrases.

Empiricism is fine and I'm an empirical scientist, but Dad seems to want some level of "proof" that can never be achieved by this super-strict empirical "a posteriori" reasoning he thrusts on others.

For instance, what if we were to put a probe down to the core of the earth and sample it. Would Dad then come back and say we didn't LOOK AT THE CORE MATERIAL when it was IN PLACE and therefore we don't really know what it's like? Or if we were to send down a camera (and it survived!) would he complain we only viewed it in one segment of the electromagnetic spectrum.

I suspect so. He will retreat to ever more bizarre requirements for "proof". (Otherwise he'd grant that maybe seismic waves are an acceptable way to view the interior of the earth.)

In a sense we do have a very strong indication of what the interior of the earth is like. But it simply isn't enough for Dad because he wants it to be otherwise.

But just let Dad loose and he's all over the map with "Seas of Eden" and "Flying Spaceship Thrones" and "Diamond Centers" and all that fine stuff.

Sauce and ganders.

But more sad still, is the injunction from the one guy who you would think matters most to dad:

[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]

dad said:

There, you posted a link about Seismic Wave Refraction, which I agree with. So?

Click to expand...

So you agree with how seismic waves refract, but you don't believe that applies to the interior of the earth???

So, you just prefer that things be different for the sake of being different, but not for any REAL reason.

I see.

dad said:

I prefer to have you support claims that the foundations of the eternal earth are like the surface, the cursed ground on which we walk, yes, of course. You need to prove that it is the same, or not claim it!!!! Gotcha!

Click to expand...

I prefer you to support claims that the earth is a) eternal b) cursed

dad said:

Well, I have seen a man start climbing a mountain that he thought the ark of the bible was on, several times, and take to preachin about the lord. I have seen others claim that they were profoundly affected and influenced on the moon, somehow. If I look at a crater on the moon, I deduce that a physical impact caused it.
For spiritual effects I assume a spiritual cause.

Click to expand...

But preaching is a physical action, so is climbing mountains and looking for things. Physical things, physical causes, right? Because they're clearly physical things. So you need to show me where on earth you've inferred the spiritual, here.

No. No more than Occam's razor is in there.

Click to expand...

Well prove it!

Not just blacks were slaves. Don't be racist. Natives and others had slaves. Romans had slaves. So? Wasn't almost all history a slave era? The fact that most men know there is some form of spiritual is not rubbish. It is an exception to the rule.

Click to expand...

During the slave era, most of the western world agreed that black people were somehow inferior. They were obviously wrong - why is that? Because the truth is not a democracy. I don't care how many people believe in spirits, dad, you still need evidence.

We do? How would we know that?

Click to expand...

Because a spiritual feeling is just like any other feeling. It is a feeling of awe at the stars perhaps, or delight in a piece of music or art. It is just plain ol' physical.

They are not fantasies, but realities.

Click to expand...

They are as fantastical as a fairy tale, dad. And they remain that way unless you can give us evidence.

I chased it away with an imaginary razor. Happy now?

Click to expand...

Oh but dad, the razor says "do not believe in entities that have no good evidence." So there goes your spirits in mountains and on the moon.

The way you describe spiritual, which has nothing to do with the spiritual. So?

Click to expand...

Lots of people describe it in the same way. The astronauts did, too - because there are no spirits in the moon.

Because I am an adult.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And that is why I don't believe there are spirits in the moon or in the mountains. You will find that, although many people are sadly deluded on some subjects, very few agree that spirits exist inside the moon.

dad said:

Ok. B) The curse is well known, it was a result of the fall of man. The ground was cursed. Child bearing became difficult, growing things was hard, pests started to exist, and man had to work hard to survive, etc. If you need more, let me know.


A) Ps 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Click to expand...

Quoting from the Bible is no more evidence than is quoting from a Norse legend, or from Cinderella.

FishFace said:

Quoting from the Bible is no more evidence than is quoting from a Norse legend, or from Cinderella.

Click to expand...

But it is a step above just making stuff up.

dad said:

Great. So, how was the view down there? Can you confirm the PO nature of what the waves passed through?

Click to expand...

LOOK real close. Do you note the subtle REFRACTION of the p-waves at the various boundaries?

First p and s-waves travel in arcs because of the increase in density and change in elastic modulus the deeper you go:



v=speed of the wave
E=elastic modulus of the rock
p=density of the rock

We know they bend because we see wht they do in controlled circumstances.

There would be no shadow zones for s or p-waves if the earth were homogenous.

We know exactly when a p-wave is generated (we have seismograms for that) and we know exactly when it arrives at different points on the earth.

We know it travels through an inhomogenous earth so we know something changes down there.

Interestingly enough, from the above equation, we know when a p-wave will "bend" around to hit the surface again (look at the picture up top again, unless you're scared to do so).

We've run all the experiments we need to model how fast a p-wave propogates, we know when and where it starts, we can predict when and where it will come out (and, when and where it WON'T come out).

So far we know more than YOU would allow us to know with your worship of ignorance.

But, here's the kicker:

We know about what at least part of the Mantle is made up of largely because we've seen some mantle rocks.

Next time, try looking up:
KIMBERLITE PIPES. These carry up bits of the mantle in the form of XENOLITHS (yet another word you've probably never heard of, but then you know so vanishingly little about what the scientists actually do know about the structure of the earth).

Some other indications of how we know what's going on down there:

http://www.igpp.ucr.edu/Mantle_Rocks.htm

But fascinatingly so, we find that the chemistry simply makes sense from both the s and p-wave transmissions AND the requisite density, mass, and mineralogy that we see.

So, while we may not know everything in absolute detail, we have so much more data than you have EVER provided in any of your posts that for you to insist we don't or that no one on here has presented you with sufficient data to argue actively against your suggestions is, well, SIMPLY WRONG.

Why was that again? To pretend they have the foggiest notion of what really goes on down there? Get a grip, man, that is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

OK, now you have been warned. You have been shown data (time and again and again, and again).

Unless and until you substantively refute the:

MINERALOGY
PHYSICS
SEISMIC DATA
CHEMISTRY

presented and incumbent upon all of this, you will have to consider your arguments substandard.

If you insist that since no one "knows" then you are equally likely correct, then you will have to explain away all the data that we do know.

You are "honest" enough for that debate right? I mean you keep hounding people for data in support of their stance, now you have some.

DEBATE AGAINST THAT OR CONSIDER YOURSELF BEATEN.

*sigh*

dad said:

Ok. B) The curse is well known, it was a result of the fall of man. The ground was cursed. Child bearing became difficult, growing things was hard, pests started to exist, and man had to work hard to survive, etc. If you need more, let me know.

Click to expand...

How exactly did God make childbearing more difficult? Did He alter Eve's pelvis to make it more difficult? Did He just stop taking away the pain that would normally have occurred?

Seismic waves are a very direct and quite clearly understood means of investigating the interior of the earth.

The following is distilled from THIS page on seismic waves in the earth.

p-waves are COMPRESSIONAL waves which can and do move through liquids. s-Waves (Shear waves) are incapable of moving through liquids.

p-wave velocity is simply modelled by this equation:



a=p-wave velocity
k=bulk modulus of the rock
u=shear modulus of the rock
p=density of the rock.

Simple, 4 terms explains things.

If the density or the moduli of the rock did not change with depth the speed would not change. Since we know how large the planet is we would be able to measure the difference between when a p-wave was generated on one side of the earth and when it was picked up on the other. We do this very thing and we see a couple of things:

1. p-waves follow and ARC through the mantle.

2. we know how long it takes for a p-wave to travel a known distance, so we know quite a bit about the density and moduli of the rock.

Dad will now probably go onto indicate we have little idea of what rocks are on the interior of the earth.

I would like to address this issue:

What we have:
1. Kimberlites carry up xenoliths of mantle minerals. Chunks of the mantle brought up to the surface.

2. Some solid mantle has been seen in eroded mountain belts and volcanic eruptions.

3. High pressure mineral assemblages from the mantle (from about 400-670km...250-416 miles) deep have been found on the island of Malaita including mineral assemblages that represent pressures of 22 gigapascals (SOURCE)

4. Other xenoliths have been found from various mantle zones (SOURCE)

5. The field of Geothermobarometry utilizes standard thermodynamic phase relationship (many of which can be recreated in the lab) to assess what temperatures and pressures various mineral assemblages are stable at.

These are all directly experiential in nature. In order to debate against these Dad will be required to point out actual errors in the mineral phase relationships such that this field must be ignored.


What we can infer:
1. Meteorites (and the overall bulk earth) are more dense than the earth's CRUSTAL rocks (the rocks we see on the surface).

2. Meteorites appear to have the overall same density as the earth. (SOURCE). They are made up of a variety of materials including Fe, Si, Mg, O and some contain Ni.

3. Meteorites without the inclusion of their Fe has roughly the same density as the mantle material.

NOW we have both CHEMICAL and PHYSICAL reasons for our model of the interior of the earth.

What do you have, Dad?